So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?

If he is then what does that make the British police spending over $16,000 a day just to keep tabs on him? Seems like it shouldn't cost quite that much if the man flies commercial anyway. I'm guessing he was under the assumption that he did no wrong so anything they did would just make said powerful nations look bad or something... but yeah I would keep special information in my sight at all times.

1) More laptops are stolen by someone needing to fuel a bad habit than by the U.S. Government each year.2) Memories change over time. He could have just misplaced his laptops.

Needless to say, the intelligence gathering guy probably had better things to do with his time than to steal some laptops.

I would say the likeliness of memory loss is quite low. For someone as clever as him…

Yeah, he's so clever his "counter-intelligence" practice was to buy a ticket at the last minute before boarding a plane. Uh, that's like #1 on the list of things that gets you detained at an airport these days. He would attract less attention with a flashing light and siren.

1) More laptops are stolen by someone needing to fuel a bad habit than by the U.S. Government each year.2) Memories change over time. He could have just misplaced his laptops.

Needless to say, the intelligence gathering guy probably had better things to do with his time than to steal some laptops.

I would say the likeliness of memory loss is quite low. For someone as clever as him…

Yeah, he's so clever his "counter-intelligence" practice was to buy a ticket at the last minute before boarding a plane. Uh, that's like #1 on the list of things that gets you detained at an airport these days. He would attract less attention with a flashing light and siren.

They investigate his lost luggage. He faces the rape charges filed against him.

He doesn't have any rape charges filed against him. He's wanted for questioning in Sweden pursuant to an investigation of an alleged rape. There have been no charges filed. Assange believes this questioning is a pretext to get him on Swedish soil so Sweden can extradite him to the United States to stand trial for the multitude of charges the US has filed against him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

It costs $16,000 a day to keep tabs on one man who is confined to a single building? If that's true the British Police really need to re-prioritize I think. Couldn't they be just as effective with one guy sitting on the stoop with a cellphone to notify HQ if he was on the move?

It costs $16,000 a day to keep tabs on one man who is confined to a single building? If that's true the British Police really need to re-prioritize I think. Couldn't they be just as effective with one guy sitting on the stoop with a cellphone to notify HQ if he was on the move?

There's more than one entry and exit. Also, if the one guy was only able to call it in, there's a reasonable likelihood he could get away, especially if he had arranged a distraction.

It's still absurd to spend that much, but I think they feel they would have even more egg on their face if he skipped the country.

They investigate his lost luggage. He faces the rape charges filed against him.

He doesn't have any rape charges filed against him. He's wanted for questioning in Sweden pursuant to an investigation of an alleged rape. There have been no charges filed. Assange believes this questioning is a pretext to get him on Swedish soil so Sweden can extradite him to the United States to stand trial for the multitude of charges the US has filed against him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please put down the tinfoil hat and come back to us when you're more knowledgeable about the Swedish criminal justice system

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

He's not on UK soil now, but if the U.S. wanted him, there was plenty of time to work something up with the UK when he was 'confined' to that mansion. If he got off a plane that landed at JFK, I'm sure the Feds would probably whisk him away, but at this point, I don't think the U.S. really gives two shits about him.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

Since Sweden has no charges against him, it seems fairly obvious to me that Assange has it right. There is no legal case to face in Sweden. He'll walk into an interview room, face no questions about any alleged sexual assault, and instead be greeted by FBI agents waiting to take him to the airport to fly back to the States.

Please explain why the US would do this rather than requesting his extradition from the UK.

It has to do with the differences in the way the extradition treaties are written, the treaty with the UK requires that the crime he is accused of committing be a crime in both countries, but the treaty with Sweden requires only that it be considered a crime in one country. Also, legally Assange is not in the UK, he's in an embassy which is considered sovereign soil so the UK can't extradite him anyway.

Sweden has the same standards, with the extra ruling that an extradition may not be granted for military or political purposes. The bar for extraditing him from Sweden is much higher than it is from extraditing him from the UK.

And that's if he even had charges pending, which at this time, he doesn't.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Wait, let me understand this: he is complaining that his private information has escaped his control, has become free against his will?? After he has made clear that he feels he has the right to do exactly that to other's private data? Wut?

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Uh... Obama has charged journalists with espionage before, and the US argues that wikileaks isn't journalism because they get to define what journalism is.

Wait, let me understand this: he is complaining that his private information has escaped his control, has become free against his will?? After he has made clear that he feels he has the right to do exactly that to other's private data? Wut?

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To be fair, paranoid conspiracy talk has been disturbingly accurate as of late.

To the point though they could have extradited him before he ducked into the Ecuadorian embassy but chose not to do so, probably as you said because they would then have to do it above board, showing cause to a UK court and didn't want to do that, they'd rather shuffle him through Sweden, no questions asked.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

For publishing e.g. Manning's leaks, the belief is that he would be tried for espionage.

If that's the case, there are quite a few real journalists out there right now who have published U.S. 'secrets'. Yet, they're not hiding...then again, they also aren't wanted for questioning in another country.

Uh... Obama has charged journalists with espionage before, and the US argues that wikileaks isn't journalism because they get to define what journalism is.

I feel you Julian. If I could press criminal charges for all the luggage the airlines have lost over the years, a lot of airlines would be in some serious trouble.

So, at best, the idiot was dumb enough to check his laptops instead of carrying them on? Oh, and 3 laptops? Why 3 laptops? Why not one with a couple of external drives? Or even maybe two laptops and an external drive or two? Whatever.

Yes, so waiting 3 years...okay.

My favorite is still describing his leaving Sweden for Germany. Yes...why don't we call it what it is, fleeing the country before you could possibly be arrested in connection to those alleged crimes you were briefly questioned about, that amount to sexual assault under Swedish law.

Okay, you want to file criminal charges over your lost luggage, that is fine. Appear in person in the locations you are requesting criminal charges be brought and they'll get right on that.

This just sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk to me. What supposed US law would he be charged under that doesn't have a similar UK counterpart? I'd think the UK would be more inclined to agree to US extradition than Sweden would, given tight historical US/UK ties.

To be fair, paranoid conspiracy talk has been disturbingly accurate as of late.

Point taken.

I still think Assange is making shit up in this particular case. I doubt the UK would not extradite him based on espionage charges, if that were the case.

So, you're a pariah to powerful nations – nations with extensive international surveillance operations and yet you choose to not only fly commercial aircraft, but also to check your luggage which contains critical information (albeit encrypted); What are you, fucking stupid?